An opinion is not facts, wheres the "facts" that prove our president is guilty for going to war ?

Question

U.S. has the legitimate right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The U.S. would have no obligation to obtain prior authorization from the UN Security Council,
Congress agreed to go to war
Iraqis lived under a brutal regime that protects its own interests ahead of its people, is a regime with no conscience.
US allowing it to continue letting innnocents continue to suffer under this rule is a nation without conscience.
a crime against humanity consists of acts of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, as being the criminal offence above all othersmurder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.
No conscience when these thing are said about Bush
all cowards can do is write it. blog it, but it does not make it so.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/attack-ques03.html

Answer 1

You hit the nail on the head and the liberals don't like that. See, every President according to them, that has went to war, is a war criminal. But they don't call Bill sending people into Somalia a war, cause he ducked and ran after a few deaths. His gutted and dismantled military couldn't handle the job.

Truth hurts but getting it out to the people is the tough part because the media is like a vulture sitting on a pole. They waiting for America to loose so they can devourer the carcass.

Answer 2

More importantly, he was protecting US national interests. Saddam refused to let UN inspectors inspect his alleged WMD sites. He also publicly supported several organizations on the US terrorist list. Given the events of 9/11 any government that allowed Iraq to possess WMD while supporting terrorist organizations would have been guilty of treason. Add to that the fact that Saddam had invaded Kuwait and threatened the other Gulf Arab states. He posed a threat to that region and thus a threat to the global economy because the Arabian Gulf is home to most of the world's oil reserve. Freeing the Iraqis from an oppressive regime was also a benefit.

Answer 3

The Iraqis have certainly been liberated to death.
I fail to see the logic of killing Iraqis to stop Sadaam killing them. That therefore cannot be a reasonable justification for the war. If their government was so bad, why not just kill their government.
If you are unable to accept the 'facts' regarding the lack of legitimate justification, you obviously argue from belief and no amount of evidence will convince you of anything.
George Bush, as leader of the USA, must be held to be the man most responsible for America's crime against humanity that is Guantanamo.
I am not, by the way, anti American. Your society has a foundation of fine ideals.
Your argument, however is spurious. (Not sure if spurious is the correct word but it seems perfectly cromulent to me).

Answer 4

Our whole country, going by what was told to us, and facts we could not verify due to being in a hostile country, went to war. WE thought it was right, but, later found out it was wrong. Fact is, it happened. We DID take out a leader that killed his own people for no other reason than he didn't like them, and we did give the choice of a new government to a oppressed people.

However, WE, as a nation, need to look for a way out now, not on who to blame.

AND NO, I am not defending Bush, I am being honest with myself.

I, as a American, Agreed to the War with what evidence was available, and I, accept that I supported the wrong decision, but, I, up as a MAN and accept what I choose.

can YOU say that?

Answer 5

Time and time again, it has been shown that this war was not about defense, the Downing Street Memo and an email from Jack Abramoff to an 'Octagon1' show that this war was planned far in advance, even before Bush was talking about it being a 'last resort'.

Why Iraq? There are places far worse. The Congo, most of Sub-Sahara Africa actually, and let's not forget Osama and the people who attacked us were in Afghanistan, NOT Iraq.

If you think Iraq is 'better' now, I'd like to have the directions to get to the dream world you live in.

Answer 6

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002036989_iraqdig16.html

While you may have some legitimate arguments, I think the Bush administration is in peril of facing charges at some point somewhere in the world. Spain and Germany have been pursuing this for several years.

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/040706warcrimes.htm

http://www.ulchurch.net/

Answer 7

Self defence!! there were no weapons of mass destruction, but still you perpetuate the lies.

Bush and Blair are guilty of "the supreme crime"


"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.", Nuremburg trials (1944-1949)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_war

Answer 8

Totally agree.

Answer 9

Your "legitimate right to self-defense" would only work if Iraq was a threat to the US>

It was NOT!

Osama was in Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ!!!!!!

Answer 10

So?